Dentist Who 'Invoiced' Patient For Negative Reviews, Getting Slammed On Yelp

from the these-things-have-a-way-of-coming-back dept

You may recall that, yesterday, we wrote about the class action lawsuit filed against dentist Stacy Makhnevich. Makhnevich used ethically and legally dubious forms from the organization Medical Justice, to demand the future copyrights on any reviews a patient might write about her. Then, she used the DMCA process to try to take down negative reviews on Yelp and DoctorBase. When that didn't work, she threatened the patient, Robert Lee, with a lawsuit, and started sending him invoices for infringement, at $100/day. None of this addressed Lee's original complaint -- that Makhnevich failed to submit the documents he needed to get reimbursed from his insurance company for an expensive procedure.

Of course, as with any typical Streisand Effect situation, all this ended up doing is leading to a hell of a lot more attention to the situation and the negative comments. But, these days, things can go even further than just driving more attention to content someone wanted disappeared. It can lead to even further backlash -- especially on sites involving reviews -- as we've seen with authors who get dinged for questionable actions. If you go take a look at Yelp's page for Stacy Makhnevich the one star reviews are flowing in... many of them calling her out for what she did. Oh, and Robert Lee's review, which kicked this whole mess off... is Yelp's "featured" review at the top of the page. Her current total review rating is at a star and a half. It used to be much, much better. Some of the reviews are entertaining. I liked this one, which notes "I heard you have to bring your lawyer with you to the dentist's office." For future reference, if you're that concerned with your online reviews, perhaps just do the best you can and respond to customer complaints promptly. Trying to whitewash complaints seems likely to backfire in big, bad way.

Filed Under: class action, copyright, dentists, dmca, doctors, reviews, stacy makhnevich
Companies: medical justice

Dentist Forced Patient To Sign Away Future Copyright On Any Online Review; Then Billed Him $100/Day For Negative Reviews

from the copyright-abuse dept

We've talked about Medical Justice a few times. This is the highly questionable outfit that gives doctors and dentists forms that these medical professionals then require patients to sign in order to get treated. The forms require the patients to pre-emptively hand over the copyright on any future reviews they might write about that medical professional. The idea is that if the doctor or dentist doesn't like the review, they can then just use the DMCA to take it down, claiming that the review infringes on their copyright. Yes, this is incredibly sleazy. This clearly has nothing to do with copyright, but rather it's a use of copyright law to try to censor criticism. There are both ethical and legal problems with this... and the legal problems are about to be discussed in court.

Public Citizen has filed a class action lawsuit against a New York dentist, Stacy Makhnevich, who not only used the Medical Justice forms, but then sent one of her patients invoices, supposedly billing him $100 per day for having posted comments about her online. As Paul Alan Levy explains:

Our individual client, Robert Lee, had a bad experience, not with Makhnevich’s dental work, but with her billing and her failure to submit the documents he needed to get reimbursed by insurance.  After his repeated efforts to get her office to do what they were supposed to do, he posted complaints on Yelp and on DoctorBase.  Makhnevich threatened to sue him over the posts, and sent DMCA takedowns, but no doubt to her surprise, not only did the patient not remove his comments, but both Yelp and DoctorBase defied the threat of infringement liability, telling Makhnevich that they regarded her agreement with the patient as illegal.  Undeterred, Makhnevich sent Lee invoices purporting to bill him $100 per day for the continued copyright infringement.  Makhnevich also hired a lawyer who sent additional threats of litigation, but rather than continue to wait to be sued, Lee has now filed suit for a judgment declaring the agreement void, an injunction preventing Makhnevich from imposing the agreement on other patients, and a notice to all Makhnevich patients informing them that they are no longer restrained by the agreement.

A few interesting things come out in the lawsuit. First, the fact that both Yelp and DoctorBase defied the DMCA takedowns. Both companies deserve kudos for that. Standing up to bogus DMCA takedowns is pretty rare these days, because the risk of getting roped into a costly lawsuit is just too high. In this case, the fact that there had been so much news about Medical Justice and it's questionable concept, and both Yelp and DoctorBase were aware of this earlier, certainly helped. Still, standing up to such threats deserves praise.

Second, the lawsuit notes that not only is this copyright abuse, but the DMCA takedown notices appear to violate HIPAA -- the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act -- which is supposed to guarantee privacy for patient info.

In September, 2011, on the letterhead of Aster Dental, a member of Dr. Makhnevich’s staff sent takedown letters under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3), to Yelp and to DoctorBase, asserting that Dr. Makhnevich owned the copyright in Lee’s Commentary pursuant to the Agreement. Defendants warned Yelp and DoctorBase that, if they did not remove the posts immediately, they would lose the immunity that the DMCA otherwise provides Internet Service Providers against monetary liability for copyright infringement. In violation of HIPAA, these takedown notices disclosed plaintiff’s height, weight and birth date, as well as his picture and his home address

The lawsuit also makes the claim that these comments, even if the copyright on them has been assigned, would still be protected as fair use. But, more importantly, it argues that these agreements in the first place constitute "copyright misuse" noting that the agreements:

constitute unclean hands and, with respect to such purported acquisition and assertion, constitute copyright misuse in light of the means by which defendants purportedly acquire the copyrights and because the purpose of such acquisition and assertion of copyright is to suppress truthful commentary concerning defendants and matters of public concern.

No matter what, this should be an interesting lawsuit to follow. As Levy explains, beyond the legal arguments, there is an important public policy aspect to this lawsuit:

The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative expression by providing a temporary monopoly (sadly, less and less temporary) that enables those whose expression is marketable to reap financial rewards for their work. At the same time, copyright law avoids giving any monopoly on facts or ideas. Agreements like the one at stake in the Makhnevich case turn copyright law on its head by taking advantage of the fact that, as a practical matter, ideas and facts are articulated through copyrightable expression; hence anything that a patient writes about a doctor or dentist is likely to have sufficient originality to be copyrighted. The Medical Injustice agreements allow professionals who use them to suppress the underlying opinions and facts, not to reap financial rewards from the expression and not to encourage further creativity. This is a misuse of copyright law and in our view it needs to be stopped.

However, from a future policy perspective, it appears that this lawsuit has already been a win. Within a day of the lawsuit being filed, Medical Justice has announced that it's retiring the agreement... and that it probably should have earlier. It also claims that it's telling doctors to stop using them. We'll see if that actually happens... and if anyone else jumps into the fray instead.

Filed Under: class action, copyright, dentists, dmca, doctors, reviews, stacy makhnevich
Companies: medical justice

Background Check Company Sued For Calling Samuel Jackson A Sex Offender

from the no,-not-that-one dept

Consumerist points us to the news that a guy named Samuel D. Jackson (not L.) has initiated a class action lawsuit against Infotrack, a background check company, because it claimed that he was a sex offender. The only problem? Infotrack got confused over its Samuel Jacksons, and didn't bother to do much to disambiguate them. That the guy they called a "sex offender" was only four years old at the time of the supposed "crime" apparently didn't set off any alarm bells at Infotrack. In fact, Jackson claims that the company told him this kind of thing happens often enough in cases where people have "common names." In this case, Infotrack didn't even check middle names, as the actual offender is named Samuel L. Jackson... though is not the famous Samuel L. Jackson. Thankfully, however, it appears that movie studios didn't rely on the same background checks in determining whether or not to employ the actor, or the class action lawsuit might have become even more entertaining.

Filed Under: background checks, class action, samuel jackson

Cisco Sued For Helping China Repress Falun Gong

from the under-what-basis? dept

News.com has a report of a class action lawsuit, filed by 11 plaintiffs who claimed they were tortured by the Chinese government, against Cisco for apparently supplying the government with the tools to track and (in some cases, falsely) arrest supposed members of Falun Gong:

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, alleges that Golden Shield--described in Cisco marketing materials as Policenet--resulted in the arrest of as many as 5,000 Falun Gong members. Cisco "competed aggressively" for the contracts to design the Golden Shield system "with full knowledge that it was to be used for the suppression of the Falun Gong religion," according to the lawsuit.

While I find the Chinese government's actions in suppressing dissident reprehensible, I'm not at all sure how there's a legitimate case against Cisco here. It may have made a bad decision to do business with the Chinese government, but is that illegal? While News.com doesn't supply a copy of the lawsuit (and why not?), I can't see what legitimate charges there can be here. This seems like yet another case of misapplied liability. Obviously, these people feel they can't go after the Chinese government, but using Cisco as a legal proxy doesn't make much sense. I could see protesting Cisco's actions, but suing the company seems like a stretch.

Filed Under: censorship, china, class action, falun gong, lawsuit, repression
Companies: cisco

Righthaven Facing Class Action Lawsuit Over Its Sham Copyright Transfer And Lawsuits

from the keep-digging dept

Things keep looking worse and worse for Righthaven. After documents were unsealed that show that the transfer of copyrights from the Las Vegas Journal-Review (and its parent company, Stephens Media) to Righthaven were almost certainly a sham transfer, designed solely to pass along "the right to sue" (which is not a separately transferable right under copyright law), it seemed like Righthaven might finally have to suck it up and realize that its business model might be a disaster. Instead, it's chosen to fight on, even as other courts have publicly raised concerns about the legitimacy of Righthaven's efforts. And while the company has hired a "star" attorney with lots of case experience supporting extreme maximalist copyright positions, Righthaven is facing even more challenges. Buzzfeed.com, one of the sites sued by Righthaven, has now filed a class action counterclaim against Righthaven based on these documents. The idea is to bring together various Righthaven defendants, as a class, and have them all sue Righthaven for its faulty lawsuits. The class action effort claims not only did Buzzfeed not infringe, but that the whole legal effort by Righthaven is an "abuse of process," especially in light of the newly-exposed legal documents. I'm not sure if this kind of class action has much of a chance, really, but it's interesting to watch Righthaven getting beat up repeatedly lately. That's what happens when you try to use a legal loophole as the basis for an entire business model.

Filed Under: class action, copyright, sham, transfer
Companies: las vegas review journal, righthaven, stephens media

Supreme Court Says Business Favorable Arbitration Clauses Can Block Class Action Lawsuits

from the which-is-more-evil? dept

Back when I was in college, one of my favorite classes was a class on arbitration. It was really fascinating to dive deep into how arbitration works, and it's a process I've remained fascinated with for years. Conceptually, it sounds like such a good idea. Have an arbitrator help work out a dispute, rather than going through a fully adversarial court process. And, when it's done right, it can be very effective. And, yet, many people are realizing that the system today is broken. According to various reports (pdf), businesses prevail 96.8% of the time in business-initiated contract arbitration cases handled by the National Arbitration Forum (and business-initiated cases are the vast, vast, vast majority of the cases). If that number seems unnaturally high, you've spotted the problem. The main issues is that, usually, the business gets to choose the arbitrator (or at least gets approval). Unlike the court system, the arbitrator is being paid for by the parties, and if that arbitrator wants to get more business, he or she is going to view the party likely to hire him or her in the future more favorably. This isn't to say there's outright corruption. I'm sure many arbitrators believe they're being fair. But the results are pretty damning.

At the same time, an equally broken process is the class action system. We've seen over and over again that class action lawsuits are used more as a way to enrich lawyers, rather than to help any particular class. The lawyers get the bulk of any settlement, and anyone in the class gets a couple dollars over an issue they didn't really care about in the first place. Or, in some cases, it's even more ridiculous where the "settlement" actually pushes people in the class to buy products from the company being sued.

So, I have to admit that I was somewhat conflicted about the Supreme Court case concerning the legality of arbitration clauses in California and their ability to block consumer class action lawsuits. In the end, the Supreme Court has ruled that the lower court rulings (in both the district and appeals courts), which upheld the right to a class action lawsuit against AT&T, were wrong. The lower courts found that the arbitration clause was an "unconscionable contract," but the Supreme Court felt otherwise, with a ruling that seemed to buy into all of the myths of arbitration, rather than what the data actually says.

The background story on the case is that a couple, Vincent and Liza Concepcion, sued AT&T in a class action lawsuit, saying that there were advertisements for free mobile phones, but sales tax was still applied on the full retail price meaning the phones weren't really free. Frankly, this seems like a somewhat silly class action claim to make and it fits with my feelings towards class action lawsuits. But, that shouldn't get in the way of the larger question, of whether or not such class actions (legitimate or not) can be blocked entirely by an arbitration clause. AT&T, of course, claimed that the arbitration clause in its contract blocked the class action lawsuit and meant it had to go through arbitration (and not as a class, but on an individual basis). And from there, we got the lower courts' decisions rejecting the clause and the Supreme Court now accepting it.

As much as I'm troubled by bogus class action lawsuits, this ruling bothers me much more. I do think that both the class action process and the arbitration process are regularly abused, but that the class action process is both more likely to be fixed and less likely to result in completely unfair results. If this involved a situation where two parties had a full and fair negotiation and then agreed to an arbitration clause, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. But when it's a "click through" sort of agreement, where the consumer has no way to bargain or negotiate the contract -- and, in fact, isn't really expected to have read the contract -- I have serious problems with the idea that people can be forced to give up their basic rights to go to court over something that is designed for them not to read.

On top of that, this certainly opens the door to companies putting arbitration clauses everywhere to keep them out of court on all sorts of potential misdeeds. The unintended consequences of this sort of thing are certainly troubling. The proper response, at this point, would be for Congress to fix the law and to make it clear that you can't give up the right to go to court through such a non-negotiated contract... but the chances of that actually happening seem slim at best.

Filed Under: arbitration, california, class action, supreme court
Companies: at&t

Judge Not Impressed By Reverse Class Action Attempt In Mass P2P File Sharing Case

from the fishing-expedition dept

We recently wrote about an attempt by one of the growing number of mass P2P pre-settlement lawsuit lawyers, John Steele, to file a reverse of defendant class action lawsuit to try to get around the issue of misjoinder in combining a bunch of totally unrelated individuals in a single lawsuit. Typically, of course, class action lawsuits involve a class as the "plaintiff" not the defendant. It's not unheard of to have a defendant class action, but it is rare. Either way, the judge doesn't seem to be buying it. In a recent hearing the judge noted that the whole thing felt like a fishing expedition, and barred the court from issuing any subpoenas until an adversarial hearing was held. It's unclear who will represent the still anonymous "class," but hopefully the judge takes a note from another court and brings in experts like Public Citizen and the EFF.

Filed Under: class action, file sharing, fishing expedition, john steele, p2p, reverse class action

Groupon Sued For Having Short Expirations On Coupons

from the class-action-madness dept

While I'm still not as convinced as some that Groupon really is a sustainable long-term business, it is an interesting one to watch. And, with any massively successful business, it's no surprise that lawsuits -- especially of the class action type -- follow. The latest is that Groupon is being sued for having its deals expire too soon under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. That act does include a provision that gift cards cannot expire for at least five years. So it seems that the basis of this class action is to claim that the deals offered by Groupon are the equivalent of a "gift card," rather than a standard coupon, which can expire in much shorter time frames.

This seems like a pretty big stretch. It's not hard to see that Groupon is much closer to offering a coupon for sale, rather than a gift card. Furthermore, if we just look at the reasoning behind this provision in the law, again, that suggests this lawsuit is frivolous. The idea behind the five year expiry on gift cards is that it's often not entirely clear when those cards expire (they're often not marked) and since they work differently than a coupon (i.e., stored value of some kind, rather than a discount on a particular item) people often hold onto them for much longer. In this case, the expiration date of what's being sold is clearly stated, so comparing it to the situations with gift cards is misguided. The whole thing just seems like yet another attempt by class action lawyers to cash in at the expense of a successful company.

Filed Under: class action, coupons, expirations, gift cards
Companies: groupon

Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse

from the against-the-class? dept

Wow. We've noted that the various lawyers who have jumped on the mass copyright infringement shakedown bandwagon (mostly for clients in the porn business) have been running into some serious problems on the issue of "joinder" -- tying all of those defendants into a single group. You're only supposed to be able to do that if they were all involved together in breaking the law. So far, the courts haven't been buying it for the most part. However, it appears one of the lawyers involved in these cases, John Steele, is trying a bit of a novel strategy: a class action lawsuit in reverse.

Normally, a class action lawsuit involves a "class" of related people as the plaintiffs. Steele is arguing that you can lump all of the defendants into a class as well:

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Class because the putative named class representative Defendants are residents of Illinois. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over absent class members because due process is satisfied by providing them with best practicable notice, an opportunity to opt-out, and adequate representation. In addition, the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over individual Defendants because their infringing activity should have reasonably been anticipated to violate the Copyright Act in this jurisdiction. Therefore, due process is satisfied because any person engaged in such activity could reasonably anticipate being haled into this jurisdiction where he or she violated the Copyright Act.

Now, there have been a few examples of such defendant class action lawsuits in the past, but they're very rare, and usually require a pretty damn good reason. I'd be surprised if the judge grants it here. As in other cases like this, judges have pointed out that the mass group of defendants sued are not really comparable, as they each may have extremely different defenses, and were not really connected to each other in any way at all.

On a totally separate note, what is it with the lawyers bringing these mass P2P porn cases all having names out of some bad novel? Evan Stone. John Steele. Ken Ford. Is there some rule that you need a forceful, single syllable last name to be one of these lawyers?

Filed Under: class action, defendant class action, file sharing, john steele, p2p, pre-settlement, reverse class action